"CENTURION" by Neil Marshall

NEIL MARSHALL has written and is already directing his new film -(let's remember MARSHALL has been one of the mentioned possible directors for the Nu Image CONAN film project).

Man, I hope he doesn't get as puerile as in "Dog Soldiers", his "Descent" was excellent but mostly because the depiction of characters and action was mature oriented.

Quote :

Plot:

The British-set sword and sandals thriller, set during the Roman invasion of Britain in AD 117, details the story of Quintus Dias, sole survivor of a Pictish raid on a Roman frontier fort, who marches north with General Virilus’ legendary Ninth Legion, under orders to wipe the Picts from the face of the earth and destroy their leader Gorlacon.

Bad new (imo) is he is getting the VERY SAME way modern epics take:

Quote :

NEIL MARSHALL: It's not meant to be historically perfect. I'm picking up on a legend and exploring it... it's an action thriller.

So, that means he is gonna do the fuck he wants to, lacking in credibility and allowing to expand the video-game like features Cromulus mentioned.

For me, the ONLY TRUE reason to not be historically accurate is being an incult and not having (or not wanting) to spend the time and money in a serious research. Fuck that. Give the project to someone who knows what the age was about... It's normal that the young audiences don't ask for historical facts, they should not demand education, education is (or should be) a responsability of the media. Of course young guys only demand fun, but you can get both and is much more enjoyable imo. Funny thing is the actual generation is growing believing ancient Greeks used giant chains as weapons and the Piramids of Gizeh were built while mammooths and sabretooth roamed around... I fucking know I talk like a grandpa, but any teen will admit he doesn't know shit about history and also, that he doesn't care.

Well, after that, these pics of CENTURION shows the movie is not bad at all, least in clothing:

And a couple of images of the movie:

Is being filmed in ENGLAND. One thing I really like about MARSHALL is how he shots the landscapes and photographs the natural enviroments. He isn't a CGI freak and that is great for me.

In a film like this the computer can add hundreds of soldiers like in "Lord Of The Rings" or the BBC film "Attilla The Hun" - nobody could afford that many extras, so a computer can b a good thing if they dont overuse it.

Saw it last week over the net. It was a dud. Really more in the vein of the silly King Arthur movie but lower budget. Olga's role wasnt very large either as was portrayed, and she didnt speak. Domenic West's character was the likable & decent star in the movie and character you kinda liked but his role was brief and he was under used. The Picts also seem more like generic Germanic barbarians and the Romans generic Englishmen,lol.

Saw it last week over the net. It was a dud. Really more in the vein of the silly King Arthur movie but lower budget. Olga's role wasnt very large either as was portrayed, and she didnt speak. Domenic West's character was the likable & decent star in the movie and character you kinda liked but his role was brief and he was under used. The Picts also seem more like generic Germanic barbarians and the Romans generic Englishmen,lol.

In the poster the Picts wear double battle-axes... wich in truth were never used by celts, not even by vikings... So I suppose it's not too historically accurate as I thought but more a REH-inspired flick... (even though in that case the main character should have been a Pict)

Acedia wrote:

Certainly looks gritty, can't say much other then that. I could be totally wrong, but I don't know much about the director either.

The director made a pile of crap titled "DOG SOLDIERS" (soldiers vs werewolves, really cartoonish and retarded but maybe fun enough with some beers and friends), then he made A REALLY REALLY GOOD MOVIE titled "THE DESCENT" (wich was Howardian enough, with females fighting naked nosferatus but in a very realistic way, not cartoonist at all as the previous one) and then he made another pile of bull titled "DOOMSDAY" (now this one was bad as hell, not even beer could save that... ) and then... the man was thought to direct the new "CONAN" movie. Then he wasn't chosen, and he came to make this "Romans vs Barbarians" thingy.

The Picts were King Arthur's "Saxons" in this movie, actually the wardrobes and mannerisms were nearly identical. Also it suffers from the lead Roman being some non-Roman by blood and savior against the evil of Roman or Imperial or Nazi Empire and the barbarians essentially being like the American Indians motifs as seen many movies but this is more subtle than in say as seen in King Arthur. But you get the same stuck between the treacherous colonial evil romans or savage but freedom loving barbarians. The only thing decent aside from West's minor role was just the fighting scenes but those too weren't very numerous nor all that great. The story is too much like Cornel Wilde's "The Naked Prey" but no where near as good or coherent. So its basically that thrown in with Gladiator and King Arthur.

Honestly, I enjoyed it. I don't get too crazy about small amounts of liberties. I am very much about the cultures and the histories, but when movies are made, these things will happen. That's just a reality. The Picts' historical descriptions are not truly complete as the only real descriptions are from the Romans,who viewed anything non- Roman to be primitive and unattractive. Tacitus and Germanicus wrote their journals with a propaganda slant to them which is why while many sightings were true, the depth of those observation are still being investigated.

By this time, Picts would have seen service as Conscripts/Mercenaries for the Romans, and their armour and dress would have been a little more mismatched. Battle formations were right out of the manuals that are still in print and the ambush actually did reflect the remains discovered centuries later.

Olga did not speak because her tongue was cut out. the brutality made her character one dimensional. Existing only to kill. It was her only purpose.

I found it to be a raw and desperate movie, as rarely do they show the Romans on the receiving end (which I personally prefer..lol).

Honestly, I enjoyed it. I don't get too crazy about small amounts of liberties. I am very much about the cultures and the histories, but when movies are made, these things will happen.

I know what you mean and I agree. The movie "Braveheart" was also very historicaly inaccurate and yet I love it, cause in the end is a very good flick. Thing is the most important thing overall -including accuracy on history or being faithful to the original ficiontal source as "Conan"- is the moviemakers putting his heart on it. Specially in epics as these. Why "Spartacus" or "CTB" or "Braveheart" are such classics today, is because they are movies made from the heart -and balls -. And yes, there goes grandpa complaining again, but.... are you ready? Ok, there I go: for some reason, NOBODY MAKES EPIC MOVIES FROM HIS HEART TODAY.

I agree. The real William Wallace went on to do a great many things, but began as more of a cut purse. He did have a woman that was killed by the English, but it was his mistress, not his wife. The mistress was killed because he owed taxes and hid out in her home. When the authorities came, he snuck out the back while she dealt with them, it resulted in her murder. Later on, he did kill the tax collector and skinned him from the back of his neck to his heel. Wallace tanned the flesh and made a baldric from it. The skinning is cool, but not nearly the tragic romance.

Falkirk is a narrow bridge, and is still there today. The strategy was excellent, letting the archers pick the English knights and soldiers off, but hardly as epic. Long pikes were used, but it was while the Scots, lured the Mounted KNights into the marshes, where the horses were made useless. Again, not nearly as epic as having them stand their ground and being commanded to "hold". An amazing scene. All these years later, it still runs the adrenaline.

Good things left out of the movie? William Wallace was named the Guardian of Scotland, and escorted the Robert the Bruce to France to talk treaties. He was abandoned by the Scottish Nobles, but it was more along the lines of stripping him of command before a battle as opposed to leaving him on the field.

We enjoy them because how well the movies were made, as it should be. The danger comes in when fiction starts replacing history.

Yep. I know what you mean. That's exactly what I felt when "Apocalypto" came out. Today I think the same as "Braveheart", it's a goddam great and funny movie, but in the time of its release I felt like it was a pretty dangerous film in the sense it reinforced some highly innacurate myths on precolumbian cultures -wich I had been studying for a couple of years-.

But today I see things different. The problem is not these kind of movies exist. The problem is these movies are the only and unique source of knowledge on history that seems to exist. Nobody makes educational movies, probably cause nobody is interested in doing them. That is really the real danger, the lack of interest on educating people, on letting them know the truth of who we are and where do we come from.

I can enjoy movies like Apocalypto and Braveheart and Conan since I am not looking for accurate history there, so things don't get mixed in my head. I can enjoy the pure adventure and the adrenaline bath without thinking. So I defend this kind of movies with all my soul.

But I also think education and teaching of the truth is important. Otherwise we are castrated.